Yes. I recall Robert Bork’s response to the effect that when Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, conservatives did not realize how lucky they had just gotten off, considering the alternatives.

Who, in Sunstein’s world, would decide which views, as expressed by which authors, would be required to be linked? Courts. It will work as everything else works: abolishing Jim Crow -> affirmative action quotas; decriminalize homosexuality -> punishment for disapproval of gay marriage; Fairness Doctrine-> no right-wing talk radio.

Of course this is silly but it cuts both ways. No it won’t. “Opposing views” will consist of government-approved views (Obama’s). Anyone who doesn’t agree with them must link to them to give them equal time. All other views are not “opposing views.”

The occasional majority of American voters who vote against freedom, democracy, prosperity have become a permanent majority. Their will be done. It’s too late to dissent now.

Does this mean that the Nation magazine will now be required to include a column by Thomas Sowell? No. Only The Nation’s view is an opposing view. Sowell’s view is not an “opposing view.”

The gang of miscreants in the White House will make the pick on demographic/political grounds. It is almost certain to be a woman of color, and a loyal Democrat.

As to Sunstein on SCOTUS, I would prefer to see Obama go the opposite way and appoint someone who is or has been a trial judge, rather than a law professor. Here in Chicago, there has been talk about Ruben Castillo, a U.S. District Court judge, as a possible pick. I do not know what Judge Castillo’s ideology is, but he is well regarded as a judge. It is unusual to pick someone from the District Court and put them directly onto the Supreme Court. I do not know when it last happened. That would be a truly outstanding pick, given that we are quite likely to see ideologically terrible (from the standpoint of this blog and most of its readers) appointments from Obama.

First, his new gf is way hotter than his old old lady.

Second, the accumulation of Tsars in the White House foretells bureaucratic turf wars and administrative clusterf***s out of Kafka, or perhaps more ethnically correct, Gogol. As the old Railroad Baron, Ed Ball, used to toast: “Confusion to the Enemy”.

When your enemy is disposing of his forces in a manner that will weaken him, it behooves you to keep you yap shut.

This is what happens to people who can live vicariously through their intellect. They get cut off from reality and, if allowed to, become a danger to their fellow citizens.

That such interesting notions are seen as the best we are likely to get by people who a) I respect, b) have some knowledge of the people involved, and c) are some of the most grounded libertarians I know is in itself a bit worrisome. How much worse is there out there? Or is this a matter of a nice guy who has been categorized with unfair sound bites? Or a nice guy so people think he can’t possiblly think that?

In a short while, any liberal proposal for control and “fairness” is going to be constitutional, under the new living, breathing, sympathetic constitution as discovered by Obama’s appointees to the Supreme Court.

I don’t know if Saul Alinsky said “a constitution is only a piece of paper”. I do know that Obama said “he would seek a nominee with ‘a record of excellence and integrity…who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book” and “someone attuned to the ‘daily realities of people’s lives’.

Isn’t that the same thing?

Word.

Sunstein would be a relief compared some of the people we could end up with.

This is one of the systemic cognitive defects of leftist. They believe that understanding what is desirable is the hard part. Non-leftist, by contrast, think it easy to see what would be desirable and instead concentrate on the real world tradeoffs necessary to attempt to reach the desirable outcome.

So, a non-leftist might readily agree that it would be good if everyone got balanced information from the internet but then would instantly start thinking about everything you would have to tradeoff to reach that balance. They would quickly decide that it was impossible to reach such a balance and that the coercive mechanisms required to force people to add balance would create such high negative externalities as to obviate any possible good.

By “quickly”, I mean within seconds. I don’t think a non-leftist would even bother to commit the idea to paper.

Putting a person with such an ivory tower “if it looks good at first glance let’s do it,” perspective in charge of regulation is a bad, bad idea.